Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Laska, E. M.
Right arrow Articles by Siegel, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Laska, E. M.
Right arrow Articles by Siegel, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Other

Power and Sample Size in Cost- Effectiveness Analysis

Eugene M. Laska, PhD

Morris Meisner, PhD

Carole Siegel, PhD

For resource allocation under a constrained budget, optimal decision rules for mutually exclusive programs require that the treatment with the highest incremental cost-effec tiveness ratio (ICER) below a willingness-to-pay (WTP) criterion be funded. This is equivalent to determining the treatment with the smallest net health cost. The designer of a cost-effectiveness study needs to select a sample size so that the power to reject the null hypothesis, the equality of the net health costs of two treatments, is high. A recently published formula derived under normal distribution theory overstates sample- size requirements. Using net health costs, the authors present simple methods for power analysis based on conventional normal and on nonparametric statistical theory. Key words: cost-effectiveness analysis; power; sample size; cost-effectiveness ratios; net health costs; net health benefits; statistical analysis. (Med Decis Making 1999;19: 339-343)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 19, No. 3, 339-343 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900312
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. PsychiatryHome page
D. Polsky, J. A. Doshi, M. S. Bauer, and H. A. Glick
Clinical Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Antipsychotic Use
Am J Psychiatry, December 1, 2006; 163(12): 2047 - 2056.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Stat Methods Med ResHome page
A O'Hagan and J W Stevens
Bayesian methods for design and analysis of cost-effectiveness trials in the evaluation of health care technologies
Statistical Methods in Medical Research, December 1, 2002; 11(6): 469 - 490.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Stat Methods Med ResHome page
A R Willan, D Y Lin, R J Cook, and E B Chen
Using inverse-weighting in cost-effectiveness analysis with censored data
Statistical Methods in Medical Research, December 1, 2002; 11(6): 539 - 551.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
A. O'Hagan and J. W. Stevens
Bayesian Assessment of Sample Size for Clinical Trials of Cost-Effectiveness
Med Decis Making, May 1, 2001; 21(3): 219 - 230.
[Abstract] [PDF]